1. Strategies For Re-balancing Your
Network:
Accelerating Strategic Change
Chris Newell, Psy.D
Senior Research Fellow
CONFIDENTIALITY
© 2007 The Institute for Global Work (IGW), The concepts and methodologies contained herein are proprietary to The Institute for Global
Work. Duplication, reproduction or disclosure of information in this document without the express written permission of IGW i s prohibited.

2. The Challenge
 40 year history of a branch structure – 57 offices
 Culture “ What happens in the branch stays in the branch”
 Lack of trust to use any resources outside the branch office
 Limited re-use of assets
 One Keane strategy announced – moving to solution sets and business lines
 This means each branch loses some autonomy and must trust “service line”
leaders with their customers
 Do we understand the risk from a people perspective in this shift?
 Do we understand the impact of “breaking up” the insular nature of the branch
offices?
 Are their ways to understand how to build trust across the enterprise to sell in
this fashion?

3. Working in A Matrix Structure
Branch Structure
Matrix Structure
Work in the system
Work on the system
Internal focus: Focus on where
we do the work
External focus: Focus on where
we create value
Lead by title/position
Lead by influence
Controlled environment
Empowered environment

4. Train Wreck – my view
The Launch at Boston University
October 22, 2013
4

5. My Challenge
 How do I show the leadership that we have huge risks in
executing on this strategy?
 Who listens to HR anyway?
 What is a way to show them the risk and develop a plan of
action?
 Conducted a Network Analysis with our top/key 150 people
 The results were stunning – and it created an opening to try to
build and rebalance the network
The Launch at Boston University
October 22, 2013
5

6. Train Wreck: ONA results
The Launch at Boston University
October 22, 2013
6

7. Overall Network Metrics
Metric
Description
Target
Keane
Density
Comments
% of existing
relationships (out
of 100%) within a
group
20%
8%
Below-average density, as some
people are highly connected and
others are very removed.
Cohesion
Average # of steps
to reach any other
person in the
group
2.0
2.4
Individuals are likely to call a friend
and then a friend of a friend in the
pursuit of desired information.
There are opportunities at Keane
to get the peripheral employees
more connected.
Centrality
Average # of
relationships per
person
15
9.9
Individuals can typically maintain
10-15 relationships at this level of
interaction. The mean centrality is
below average. There seems to
be a wide distribution of ties, with
some employees very wellconnected and many on the
periphery.

8. The Network
Benchmarks
Density = 20%
Cohesion = 2.0
Centrality (IN) =15
Network Measures
Density = 8.17%
Cohesion = 2.42
Centrality (IN) =9.967
Top 10 Central
People Dropped
Density reduced by
26%

9. The Hierarchy Dominates
Hierarchical Network
Position
= Vice President
= Group/Area VP
= Managing Director
= Director
= Director Service Delivery
= Client Executive
= Sales Rep
= Manager
Network Measures
Density = 8.17%
Cohesion = 2.42
Centrality (IN) =9.967

10. The Theory
 De-layer overly connected people
 Identify brokers, overloaded points
 Replicate behaviors of those central to the network in order to
shift the information load
 Re-allocate decision making
 Minimize inefficiencies that result when better-connected
people depart and leave a hole in the network.
 Integrate peripheral people
 Identify marginalize voices
 What roles are represented on the edge of the network?
 What are the major impediments to keeping more people from being central
 Identify points in the information flow network
where greater collaboration would yield
effectiveness and efficiency benefits

11. The Practice
 We stopped all leadership training and instead focused on sessions to problem
solve and practice working on solutions together
 Developed regional sessions with the right people in the room sharing the new
solutions and having “live” practice sessions with “customers.
 We set teams to compete on new deals and expanding old deals
 We designed it to be intense, competitive, real life as possible, and to build
them as new teams
 Because sales was on the edge of the network with high turnover– we revamped
how we oriented them, trained, mentored, and connected them
 We found the brokers and made them champions of the communities of practice
 We built a knowledge and collaboration systems to support tacit and explicit
knowledge exchange.
The Launch at Boston University
October 22, 2013
11

12. Network
Benchmarks
Density = 20%
Cohesion = 2.0
Centrality (IN) =15
Network Measures
Density = 9.45%
Cohesion = 2.48
Centrality (IN) =13.607
Top 10 Central
People Dropped
Density reduced by
18%

13. Hierarchy: 6 Months later
Position
= Vice President
= Director
= Function Manager
= Department Manager
= Sales Rep
= Client Executive
= Other
= No answer
Network Measures
Density = 9.45%
Cohesion = 2.48
Centrality (IN) =13.607

14. Results 6 months later
Overall Network Comparison:
Metric
Description
Keane 1st ONA
(n=123)
Keane 2nd ONA
(n=145)
Density
% of existing
relationships (out of
100%) within a group
8%
(Target=20%)
9.5%
(Target =20%)
Cohesion
Average # of steps to
reach any other
person in the group
2.4
(Target=2)
2.5
(Target=2)
Average # of
relationships per
person
9.8
(Target=15)
13.6
(Target=15)
Centrality
Network Comparison Consisting of Employees Completing Both Surveys:
Keane 1st ONA
(n=46)
Keane 2nd ONA
(n=46)
% of existing
relationships (out of
100%) within a group
8.5%
11.16%
Average # of steps to
reach any other
person in the group
3.152
Metric
Description
Density
Cohesion
Centrality
Average # of
relationships per
person
Greater than 18%
improvement in density
from the 1st to the 2nd ONA,
despite larger network size
Greater than 38%
improvement in centrality
from the 1st to the 2nd ONA,
despite larger network size
Greater than 31%
improvement in density
from the same sample from
1st to the 2nd ONA
12% improvement in
cohesion
3.8
2.77
5.02
32% improvement in
centrality
Effective and Very Effective

15. Feeling Close vs. Being Close
“Feel Close”
Where are you?
We’re right here.
Client
Pureplay
Videoconferencing
Western Hemisphere
Eastern Hemisphere
Integrated collaboration across Keane’s Information Value Chain
1
2
3
4
5
Find the Deal
Win the Deal
Deliver the Project
Document the Project
Share with Keane
SALESFORCE.COM
PURSUIT
POST-PROJECT
PORTAL/INTRANET
Client
The Launch at Boston University
PROJECT
“Be Close”
Keane
October 22, 2013
15

16. Bring the Strategy to the Desktop.
To live the strategy every day, employees need an Enterprise Desktop.
Keane success
Project success
My business success
CEO
President, North American Global Practices
Vision, Strategy, Direction
PM-SDM
VP/GM
Responsible for Delivery
BL , Region , Vertical
Tasks
Support
Keane Information Worker
This is where I get information…
…and where I do my work:
• OKT company strategy
• Deliver pursuits and projects
• Group data, news & announcements
• Report time & expenses
• SME/COP thought leadership
• Interact with the customer
• Knowledge assets
• Leverage my extended team
The Launch at Boston University
October 22, 2013
16